click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
of congress? >> reporter: republicans say the altered talking points show the obama administration wanted for political reasons to minimize the possibility of terrorism early on. democrats say it shows the facts were still coming in. >> looking at the raw intelligence, there were many conflicting reports some that said there were protests some that said there weren't. there were groups claiming responsibility, others denying responsibility. it took time to get it right. >> why was the talking point memo initially released from the cia after it went through the process, why were certain things taken out? why was there such an emphasis on this youtube video as opposed to the other motivations that could have sparked the attack? >> reporter: the cia talking points memo would have been run through the justice department and other u.s. intelligence agencies before it was given to lawmakers. >> harris: thank you hole molly. we'll learn more about the libya probe and general petraeus' resignation from senator saxby chambliss vice chair of the senate intelligence committee and senator lieberman.
'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up these questions, but does it ego to the level of needing a special prosecutor? how far do you think this will go? >> clearly there is a movement on the republican side to keep this going. as we heard senators graham and mccain want a special investigation. we have representative mike enentire, the chairman of th
of the surveillance in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the petri at act and continued under the obama administration. the government has more access to info about us than at anytime in history. a small example of what this looks like. check out this graph of u.s. government from google. these are requests that don't require warrants and this doesn't include the security related requests not disclosed. for awhile, i thought the combination of these trends, the u bik wiity of technology was pushing us to a future where citizens would be unable to keep their secrets while the government keeps its secrets. i feared it would end up totally exposed to each other and the state. the state and its doing and what it's doing in our name would be a mystery. then miraculously, but also inevitably, they collided with each other in the petraeus affair. the four-star general's communications with broadwell reveal a lot of mundane personal failings. really, it seems not anything scandalous as far as the public's fear goes. the only possible scandal, as far as i can tell, is the conditions which the fbi came to read
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)